Well, the Mrs. and I are headed out on vacation tomorrow to the great state of North Carolina. I'll try to twitter some of the action for anyone who cares. In the meantime, I leave you with this article that provides a pretty good summary of Obama-style unity and bipartisanship. Enjoy and I'll be back soon.
A Brief History Of White House Thuggery
Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Simple Lesson in Economics
Let's say you win some kind of odd lottery and you have two options for payout:
(1) You can have 50 people pay you $1,000 a year for the next 10 years
or
(2) You can have 100 people pay you $750 a year for the next 10 years
Which one would you take? The answer is pretty simple, right? Apparently not for our government. They would rather take $1,000 a year from a few people than smaller amounts from a lot of people.
Can someone please point me to one time in history where a tax increase stimulated an economy? Just one. Saying a tax increase brings in more money for the government ignores everything except for the fact that you have an immediate, short-term, temporary increase in revenue.
Amanda and I own a small business. By small, I mean we have 5 employees. If our sales start to pick up and we have more and more customers coming in, we'll need to hire an additional person to keep up with the pace. Now, let's assume the government increases our taxes to help pay for something it wants to do. It also increases taxes on our 5 employees. Does the government get more money initially? Sure it does. It gets the difference between what we and our employees were paying collectively and what we're collectively paying now. The drawback is that with increased costs, we can't afford to hire anymore employees.
Wouldn't it make more sense to either decrease our taxes or leave them alone? In doing so, we could afford to hire an additional employee and the government would then be getting additional tax revenue from that new employee in addition to the same revenue it was getting before from us and our 5 other employees. If the government actually decreased our taxes, we might even be able to hire more than one new employee to try to grow our business rather than just keeping pace with current business. Extrapolate this across America, and it's easy to see why a broader tax base is a much better way to increase tax revenue than increasing taxes on existing tax payers.
The honest truth is, the democrats know all this, but they would rather punish the successful than require everyone to chip in. History shows that when you raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, jobs suffer. When jobs suffer, people suffer. It really is a simple concept that gets largely ignored by our government. I, for one, am sick of it. Why should I seek to excel in my job if I'm only going to be punished by higher taxes? Socialism kills innovation and hard work. Just look at the former Soviet Union. In just a few more years, we might be able to say, "just look at post-2009 America."
(1) You can have 50 people pay you $1,000 a year for the next 10 years
or
(2) You can have 100 people pay you $750 a year for the next 10 years
Which one would you take? The answer is pretty simple, right? Apparently not for our government. They would rather take $1,000 a year from a few people than smaller amounts from a lot of people.
Can someone please point me to one time in history where a tax increase stimulated an economy? Just one. Saying a tax increase brings in more money for the government ignores everything except for the fact that you have an immediate, short-term, temporary increase in revenue.
Amanda and I own a small business. By small, I mean we have 5 employees. If our sales start to pick up and we have more and more customers coming in, we'll need to hire an additional person to keep up with the pace. Now, let's assume the government increases our taxes to help pay for something it wants to do. It also increases taxes on our 5 employees. Does the government get more money initially? Sure it does. It gets the difference between what we and our employees were paying collectively and what we're collectively paying now. The drawback is that with increased costs, we can't afford to hire anymore employees.
Wouldn't it make more sense to either decrease our taxes or leave them alone? In doing so, we could afford to hire an additional employee and the government would then be getting additional tax revenue from that new employee in addition to the same revenue it was getting before from us and our 5 other employees. If the government actually decreased our taxes, we might even be able to hire more than one new employee to try to grow our business rather than just keeping pace with current business. Extrapolate this across America, and it's easy to see why a broader tax base is a much better way to increase tax revenue than increasing taxes on existing tax payers.
The honest truth is, the democrats know all this, but they would rather punish the successful than require everyone to chip in. History shows that when you raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, jobs suffer. When jobs suffer, people suffer. It really is a simple concept that gets largely ignored by our government. I, for one, am sick of it. Why should I seek to excel in my job if I'm only going to be punished by higher taxes? Socialism kills innovation and hard work. Just look at the former Soviet Union. In just a few more years, we might be able to say, "just look at post-2009 America."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Great Hunter
So, as you've seen from one of my earlier posts, I recently stumbled onto a way to give Bailey a decent amount of exercise that fits my limited athletic ability. Yesterday morning I ventured back to the pond again thinking since it's 380 degrees outside, Bailey might enjoy a swim in the pond. To my surprise, she found something more exciting than swimming--hunting butterflies.
For those of you who don't know, Bailey is a Brittany. Brittanies are specifically bred for bird hunting and are pointers by nature. Bailey has never had any pointer or bird hunting training, but she certainly knows how to point. When she sees something she wants to hunt, she will freeze in place and watch for an opportunity to pounce. It's a very majestic sight.
Anyway, back to the story. As I'm pacing Bailey back and forth by the pond trying to get her to jump in, she sees something and freezes into the point position. I was able to get my phone out and take some pictures before she pounced on her prey--a tiny yellow butterfly/moth which she proceeded to chase around for the next 20 minutes or so. I'm so proud!
For those of you who don't know, Bailey is a Brittany. Brittanies are specifically bred for bird hunting and are pointers by nature. Bailey has never had any pointer or bird hunting training, but she certainly knows how to point. When she sees something she wants to hunt, she will freeze in place and watch for an opportunity to pounce. It's a very majestic sight.
Anyway, back to the story. As I'm pacing Bailey back and forth by the pond trying to get her to jump in, she sees something and freezes into the point position. I was able to get my phone out and take some pictures before she pounced on her prey--a tiny yellow butterfly/moth which she proceeded to chase around for the next 20 minutes or so. I'm so proud!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
